HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-16-2018 - Item 2 - Lopes1
Tonikian, Victoria
From:Davidson, Doug
Sent:Monday, April 16, 2018 8:34 AM
To:Tonikian, Victoria
Cc:Purrington, Teresa
Subject:FW: ARC item 2: Caudill Street Project Revisions
ARC correspondence thanks
From: James Lopes [
Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2018 11:43 PM
To: Advisory Bodies <advisorybodies@slocity.org>; Davidson, Doug <ddavidson@slocity.org>; Bell, Kyle
<KBell@slocity.org>
Subject: ARC item 2: Caudill Street Project Revisions
Architectural Review Commission
Dear Chairperson Root and Commissioners:
RE: https://www.slocity.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=19266
I am asking that you require major revisions to this contemporary architecture, to become very close to the traditional
architectural styles of residences in the area. This is not a commercial project, and it is not on a Scandanavian or
German boulevard. As a mixed use project, it should provide an obvious residential character above a retail, public
street frontage. You have only to read the Community Design Guidelines to see that this project is not consistent with
them. This project is not anything like the traditional styles of area residences, in contradiction to staff's assertion. This
project is designed as an artistic statement, without much regard to a welcoming or comfortable presence, with the
exception of the ground‐floor street corner. The expanse along Caudill is especially unwelcoming.
From the staff report, I have underlined the text at issue with the project design:
Building Design Modifications The SOBRO design guidelines require that Mixed‐Use buildings be designed to reflect
either the Railroad Commercial or the Broad Street Village Contemporary architectural styles. The Broad Street Village
Contemporary Style pays homage to the past with a blend of traditional and contemporary architectural forms,
materials, and influences to create an urban village character. The CDG’s state that multi‐family housing should be
derived from architectural styles in the surrounding neighborhood and should be designed to ensure that the height and
bulk of higher density projects do not impact adjacent lower density residential areas (CDG, Chapter 5.4C)
The second request I have is that you require much more retail space, to qualify this project as a mixed‐use one. Just
having 6,000 square feet of retail in this setting will not create a vital or vibrant commercial or public environment. Half
of the Caudill facade is masked with concrete walls and garage entrance. This facade should have at least small fronting
shops, which would be very popular now. At least the planter near the garage entrance might better integrate with the
pedestrian emphasis which the City encourages, by being a small, benched seating area.
I want to also ask that you have the architect avoid the use of primary or black colors, and on long wall planes. Muted
hues are preferable in this low‐key, green and potential pedestrian, small‐scale neighborhood. The original wine red is
more appropriate than the primary red. The use of large color bands and patterns here does not comply with CDG
2
3.1B.12a as staff points out for the parking area colors. Corrugated metal siding should also be denied in favor of higher
quality materials and better connotations than a warehouse.
Lastly, I ask that you require at least half of the residences to be dedicated affordable housing units, in order for this
project to found consistent with the Housing Element. This project is not consistent with the Housing Element,
otherwise, because the units will be sold at market rates ‐ whatever the market will bear, and they will therefore be
expensive. The City does not need more expensive housing units.
Thank you for considering these comments. Although I do not anticipate that you will carry any of them forward, it is
useful to build a record of concerns about the lack of implementation of City policies and guidelines.
James Lopes
San Luis Obispo